European Research Council UK National

Contact PointInformation and Proposal Writing Event for

the 2018 ERC Starting Grant Call

July 2017Jon Brookes, EU Advisor, UKRO

10:15 Registration

10:45 Welcome

11:00 Presentation of the ERC Starting Grant scheme (including Q&A)• Introduction to UKRO and UK ERC NCP• Implications of the EU Referendum Outcome• Introduction to the ERC• ERC Starting Grant – main features• Proposal – PI and research project evaluation criteria• Project costs and budget• Grant Management• Ethics• Evaluation Process• Interviews

12:00 Coffee/tea break

12:30 Case Study (incl. Q&A) – Dr Hugo Bronstein, UCL

12:45 Presentation of the ERC Starting Grant Scheme (continued)

14:00 Finish

Agenda

Introduction to UKRO and UK ERC NCP

• Mission:To maximise UK engagement in EU-funded research, innovation and higher education activities

• The Office:– Based in Brussels– European office of the UK Research Councils– Delivers subscription-based advisory services for around 150 research

organisations in the UK and beyond– Also provides National Contact Point services on behalf of the UK

Government

UK Research Office (UKRO)

I. UKRO Portal: tailored news articles and clear and accessible web pages on the latest in EU funding

II. Enquiry service: individual support through your dedicated European Advisor

III. Annual briefing visits: bespoke training for your institution

IV. Meeting room: a venue in Brussels

UKRO subscriber services

• Provides advice on the ERC and its grant schemes

• Website: www.ukro.ac.uk/erc

• Helpdesk– Email: erc-uk@bbsrc.ac.uk– Phone: 0032 2289 6121

• Funded by BEIS

European Research Council UK National Contact Point (ERC NCP)

Implications of the EU Referendum Outcome

• The UK is still an EU Member State and continues to be until the end of the negotiations.

• This means it has the same rights and obligations as all other 27 Member States, including the participation in EU funding programmes.

• Details on how the UK can participate after an exit need to be determined during the negotiations.

• UK Government has a dedicated inbox for specific concerns Research@beis.gsi.gov.uk and UKRO can advise on latest developments UKRO@bbsrc.ac.uk .

Current situation

The Commission explicitly briefs evaluators in their guidance:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/support/expert/h2020_expert-briefing_en.pdf

Commission guidance for evaluators

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-philip-hammond-guarantees-eu-funding-beyond-date-uk-leaves-the-eu

• UKRO understand that eligibility for the guarantee will extend to all application submitted before the exit date, and not just to grants signed.

• British universities and research organisations should therefore continue to apply for EU funding through mechanisms such as Horizon 2020 while the UK remains a member of the EU.

• UK Government guarantees EU Funding for UK researchers beyond the date the UK leaves the EU: "where UK organisations bid directly to the European Commission on a competitive basis for EU funding projects while we are still a member of the EU, for example universities participating in Horizon 2020, the Treasury will underwrite the payments of such awards, even when specific projects continue beyond the UK's departure from the EU”

UK Government Statement 13 August 2016

• The UK has formally invoked Article 50• A letter was delivered to the President of the European Council.• In the Prime Minister's statement to the UK

Parliament, Theresa May reiterated the importance of continued collaboration in research:

Article 50 Invoked: 29 March 2017

"We hope to continue to collaborate with our European partners in the areas of science, education, research and technology, so that the UK is one of the best places for science and innovation."

• An extraordinary meeting of the European Council was held on 29 April where remaining 27 states adopted a set of negotiating guidelines.

• It is too early to speculate on the timing and nature of the negotiations on UK engagement with Horizon 2020 and future funding programmes.

What happens next?

Source: European Commission

• UKRO also provides a public page and FAQ sheet on UK participation in EU funding for research, innovation and higher education.

• Aims to provide factual answers to the most common questions, both with a UK and international audience in mind.

UKRO FAQs

Introduction to the ERC

What is the ERC?

“The fundamental activity of the ERC is to provide attractive, long-term funding to support excellent investigators and their research teams to pursue ground-breaking, high-gain/high-risk research.”

“Scientific excellence is the sole criterion on the basis of which ERC frontier research grants are awarded.”

“The ERC’s frontier research grants operate on a ‘bottom-up’ basis without predetermined priorities.”

ERC Work Programme 2017 text

Societal challenges

38%

EIT and other

5%JRC3%

ERC17%

Other Excellent Science

15%

Industrial leadership

22%

ERC Budget in Horizon 2020

Source: ERC

ERC allocated around €12.7 billion for Horizon 2020 (~ 60% increase in real terms compared to FP7). .

Largest amount of funding will go to the Starting Grants and Consolidator Grants schemes.

ERC Grant Schemes

• For PIs 2-7 years from PhD, up to €2 million for 5 years

Starting Grants

• For PIs 7-12 years from PhD, up to €2.75 million for 5 years

Consolidator Grants

• For leading researchers, up to €3.5 million for 5 years.

Advanced Grants

• for 2 to 4 PIs, up to €14 million for 6 years.

Synergy Grants

• For ERC grant holders only, up to €150,000 for 18 months

Proof of Concept

* Work programme has yet to be finalised/adopted. Call information on the Research & Innovation Participant Portal

ERC Starting Grant 2018 call*

Call identifier ERC-2018-StG

Call opens July 2017

Deadline October 201

Budget €million (estimated grants) 581 (391)

Planned dates to inform applicants May 2018August 2018

Indicative date for signature of grant agreements December 2018

• The UK was the most successful country in applying to the ERC in FP7

• Around 20% of all ERC grants are based in the UK

• PIs at over 80 institutions in the UK have been awarded an ERC grant

• Over 1500 grants have been awarded to UK Host Institutions since 2007.

• See here for the details of funded projects: http://erc.europa.eu/erc-funded-projects

• And here for more statistics: http://erc.europa.eu/projects-and-results/statistics

UK historic success in ERC

Funded Projects by Domain

Source: ERC

• 390 proposals selected for funding from a total of 2935 submitted. Overall success rate around 13%, compared to around 12.2% in 2015 and the UK success rate is around 13.9%.

• The numbers by research domain are: – Physical Sciences and Engineering (PE): 1268 evaluated (176 UK), 180

funded (21 UK) – Life Sciences (LS): 850 evaluated (118 UK), 121 funded (16 UK) – Social Sciences and Humanities (SH): 763 evaluated (189 UK), 89 funded

(30 UK) • UK was awarded the second highest number of grants per country, with 67

grants awarded to different UK institutions; this is 17.2% of all grants awarded in this call.

• Success rate for male applicants 14.5% and for female applicants 11.4%. Female applicants made up 30% of funding list vs 28% in 2015.

ERC-2016-StG Results

ERC Starting Grant Main features

• Support excellent researchers at the career stage of starting their own independent research team or programme.

• Improve opportunities and independence at the start of a research career.

• Provide structure for transition from working under a supervisor to independent research.

• Enable PIs to create excellent new teams to bring new ideas to their disciplines.

Aims of Starting Grant scheme

• No pre-determined priorities – applications can be made in any field of research

• Emphasis on the ‘frontiers of science, scholarship and engineering’ – research to lead to advances at the frontiers of knowledge

• Could be:– interdisciplinary proposals – proposals addressing new and emerging fields of research– proposals introducing unconventional, innovative approaches and

scientific inventions

• Not suitable for ‘consortium-type’ proposals

Types of research funded

• Central to the grant and review criteria

• Expected to lead their team and be fully engaged in the running of the grant

• Can be of any age, nationality or current location

• Expected to spend: – A minimum 50% of total working time on the ERC project and – A minimum of 50% of total working time in an EU Member State or

Associated Country (this does not exclude fieldwork/research outside Europe needed to achieve research objectives)

• Chooses a host institution in EU Member State or Associated Country (or an ‘International European Interest Organisation’)

Principal Investigators (PI)

• 2 to 7 years from date of award of first PhD or equivalent(as at 1 January 2018)– so those who were awarded their PhD from 1 January 2011 to 31

December 2015 (inclusive)

• Extensions for certain reasons (must be properly documented). These are:– Maternity leave (18 months per child, or if longer by the documented

amount of leave actually taken), paternity leave (actual amount of documented leave taken), national service, long-term illness (over 90 days) of PI or a close family member (child, spouse, parent or sibling) and clinical training

– Please see Work Programme for details (p 17)

• No extensions for part-time working, non-research careers, travel, etc. (but this is taken into account for evaluation of the PI’s track record)

PI eligibility

• Can be any type of legal entity• Must be established in an EU Member State or Associated Country• The PI does not have to be based there at the time of application• Has relevant infrastructure and capacity - must provide appropriate

conditions for the PI to independently direct the research and manage the ERC funding

• Must not constrain the PI in relation to the research strategy of the institution

• Normally employs the PI• Not assessed as a separate criterion during peer review but must

sign a letter of commitment as part of application• If funded:

– signs up to the Grant Agreement with the ERCEA– signs a ‘Supplementary Agreement’ with the PI

Host Institution

• PI has freedom to choose appropriate ‘team members’-constitution of individual research team is flexible (senior research staff, post-docs, PhDs, non academic staff, etc…)

• PI's host institution normally the only institution but can have team members from other institutions in the same or different countries (institutions will sign Grant Agreement)

• Team members can be of any age, nationality and may be based anywhere

• Individual research team headed by a single PI (including any team members at other institutions) so not a traditional network or research consortium

• Resubmission restrictions do not apply to team members

Team members

• Normally maximum grant of €1.5 million over 5 years ERC contribution (or pro-rata for shorter projects)

• Can request an additional €0.5 million (not pro-rata), but only to cover:– eligible “start-up” costs for PIs moving from to the EU/Associated

Country from elsewhere as a consequence of receiving the ERC grant;– the purchase of major equipment; and/or– access to large facilities.

Any additional funding requested must be justified in Part B Section 2c (see later).

• Limit includes direct and indirect costs (see later)

Funding levels and duration of grant

ProposalResearch project and evaluation criteria

• Single-stage submission, but two-step evaluation (with interviews for StG and CoG, not AdG)

• Go to submission system (ECAS password required)

• Complete administrative forms online

• Download, complete and upload pdf files for Part B (10MB limit) and annexes

• Proposal formats and page numbers are strictly limited

• No additional documents allowed

• Checklist provided in Information for Applicants document (automated check on some elements only)

Participant Portal

• Start in plenty of time, and check you can save as pdf!

• Double check all details

• Can revise and resubmit up to deadline – Remember to press ‘submit’ button!

• Deadline strictly enforced

• Help: Information for Applicants document

• IT Problems: Participant Portal IT Helpdesk

Proposal submission

• Part A – Administrative and Summary Forms– General information (including abstract)– Administrative data of participating organisations (one form per

institution, much of this will be pre-filled using information from PIC number)

– Budget (summary financial information)– Ethics– Call specific questions

• Part B1 – Proposal Details– Cover page & proposal summary– Extended Synopsis of the scientific proposal (5 pages)– Curriculum Vitae including Funding ID (2 pages excluding funding ID)– Track record (2 pages)

Structure of application forms

• Part B2 – Research Proposal (15 pages)– a) State-of-the-art and objectives– b) Methodology– c) Resources (including project costs)

• Annexes– Host Institution Statement of Support (template from PPSS)– Ethics self-assessment (if applicable) (see ‘Information for Applicants’ for

guidance)– PhD record and supporting documentation for eligibility checking

Parts B1, B2 and supporting documentation to be uploaded and submitted as .pdf files.

Structure of application forms (cont.)

• Excellence sole evaluation criterion• Applied to:

– the ground-breaking nature, ambition and feasibility of the research project

– the intellectual capacity, creativity and commitment of the Principal Investigator

• Proposals marked on the above, ranging from 1 (non-competitive) to 4 (outstanding)

• Numerical marks not communicated to applicants - outcome of panel meetings expressed as A, B or C (see later).

ERC evaluation criteria

ERC evaluation criteria: research project1. Research Project Starting, Consolidator and Advanced

Ground-breaking nature and potential impact of the research project

• To what extent does the proposed research address important challenges?

• To what extent are the objectives ambitious and beyond the state of the art (e.g. novel concepts and approaches or development between or across disciplines)?

• To what extent is the proposed research high risk/high gain?

Scientific Approach• To what extent is the approach feasible bearing in mind the

fact that the proposed research is high risk/high gain?• To what extent is the proposed research methodology and

working arrangements appropriate to achieve the goals of the project (based on the full Scientific Proposal)?

• To what extent does the proposal involve the development of novel methodology (based on the full Scientific Proposal)?

• To what extent are the proposed timescales and resources necessary and properly justified (based on the full Scientific Proposal)?

• Consider what excites you about the research and convey this in your application

– Explain how the research will open new horizons or opportunities

• Think about your audience and remember to explain UK-specific terminology

• Provide a clear, concise work-plan, giving details of any intermediate goals.

• Take the pulse of your field, choose and clearly define an unmet need, think inter-disciplinary

• Explain what each team member is doing (and their background/ recruitment profile)

• Clearly explain how you will manage and disseminate your project

• Don’t forget the role and requirements of open data and ethics (see below)

• Justify the resources you need for your research proposal and ensure the resources are appropriate.

– Have you included all staff costs?

General tips

• Structure your proposal to address each of the evaluation criteria -use the ERC’s terminology explicitly

• You can use data, graphs, photos and pictures where appropriate to visualise your ideas

• Should strike a balance between showing the experts in your field that you know your stuff, and engaging the non-experts

• Balance your vision with a strong, confident plan and good project structure

• Projects with a risky/new methodology are welcomed, as long as there is a good reason for trying it out and a potentially high reward

• The proposal should be easy and enjoyable to read…not just about the science!

Research Project: feedback

Anonymous feedback taken from panel comments on proposals in PE, LS and SH domains

Successful projects– “The panel were particularly impressed with the level of both detail and breadth

with which the project plans to research this question. It was felt that this research was of foundational significance to the understanding of […] and would have considerable impact in multiple related fields of research.”

– “The panel recognized that the scientific excellence and the novelty of this project and sees the great potential of a method for […].”

Unsuccessful projects– “However, the panel was not convinced about the coherence of the four parts of the

proposal and about the design of this most innovative part. In fact, each part currently has weaknesses.”

– “While the ambitions and objectives of the project are highly important proposing high-risk research of a high quality principle investigator with a lot of background in the field, the proposed concepts are described in very little detail and somewhat lack originality.”

Research Project: feedback from panels

Principle InvestigatorLead Researcher and evaluation criteria

ERC evaluation criteria: Principal Investigator

2. Principal Investigator Starting

Intellectual capacity and creativity

• To what extent has the PI demonstrated the ability to propose and conduct ground-breaking research?

• To what extent does the PI provide evidence of creative independent thinking?

• To what extent have the achievements of the PI typically gone beyond the state of the art?

Commitment • To what extent does the PI demonstrate the level of commitment to the project necessary for its execution and the willingness to devote a significant amount of time to the project (minimum 50% of the total working time) (based on the full Scientific Proposal)?

Must have already shown potential for research independence and evidence of maturity. For example:

• By having produced at least one important publication as main author or without the participation of their PhD supervisor

• Should also be able to demonstrate promising track record of early achievements appropriate to their field and career stage:

– including significant publications (as main author) in major international peer-reviewed multidisciplinary scientific journals, or in the leading international peer-reviewed journals of their respective field

– they may also demonstrate a record of invited presentations in well-established international conferences, granted patents, awards, prizes etc.

PI: competitive candidates

• Should include standard academic and research records –template available (may be modified)

• Concise ‘funding ID’ (outside page limit) covering:

– Current research grants and their subject– Ongoing applications for work relating to the proposal

• Any research career gaps and/or ‘unconventional career paths’ should be clearly explained so that they can be fairly assessed by the evaluation panels.

PI: CV (2 pages max.)

The PI should list:

• Up to five publications in major international peer-reviewed multi-disciplinary scientific journals and/or in the leading international peer-reviewed journals, peer-reviewed conferences proceedings and/or monographs of their respective research fields, highlighting those as main author or without the presence as co-author of their PhD supervisor (properly referenced, field relevant bibliometric indicators may also be included);

• Research monographs and any translations thereof;• Granted patent(s);• Invited presentations to internationally established conferences and/or

international advanced schools;• Prizes/ Awards/ Academy memberships

Track record (2 pages max.)

• Sell yourself• Remember the Funding ID section in the CV is important• Make sure you address the full requirements of the track

record, and consider what makes you stand out• Clarify specific points to strengthen your application and give

additional relevant details• Explain anything that is UK specific• The evaluators will review the PI on the basis of their

experience and information the PI provides on the application form

• If you refer to journal impact factors, state which one you are using

PI: general tips

• Provide specific details of prizes, citation data for publications, project management experience, papers at conferences, mentoring of students etc.

• Pack the Track Record with evidence about your achievements – panels are more likely to give an ambitious project the go-ahead if they ‘trust’ the PI, and are convinced of your credibility as an excellent researcher/project leader.

• Try to explain how you are exactly the right person to undertake this particular project, at this specific moment in time.

• Refer explicitly to the criteria used in the Starting Grant call documents.

PI: feedback

Anonymous feedback taken from panel comments on successful proposals in PE, LS and SH domains

Successful projects– “The PI has a superb publication track record in all three areas covered by

the proposal. She is one of the world leaders in these fields and her work sets the state-of-the-art.”

– “The PI has produced fundamental work in […], relevant for much of the proposal, and has given a very illuminating account of a huge range of recent work pertinent for the project.”

Unsuccessful projects– “The PI’s track record is solid but not outstanding with work mostly

published in specialty journals.”– “The applicant has a good but not outstanding track record. Parts of the

proposal are not sufficiently covered by the research expertise of the principal investigator.”

PI: feedback from panels

Project Costs and Budget

• Reimbursement of up to 100% of total eligible costs:

– Direct costs: up to 100% of eligible costs– Indirect costs: flat-rate of 25% of eligible direct costs

• Information on eligible and ineligible costs on next slides and also given in detail in Article 6 of the Annotated Model Grant Agreement for Horizon 2020:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/amga/h2020-amga_en.pdf

Costs

• “Costs that are directly linked to the action implementation and can therefore be attributed to it directly.”

• Examples: personnel, equipment, consumables, travel and subsistence, and publication costs

• Most costs likely to be ‘actual’:

– actually incurred by the beneficiary;– incurred within the duration of the project (except costs relating to last periodic/final

report);– must be indicated in estimated budget;– must be incurred in connection with the action and necessary for its implementation;– recorded in accounts (identifiable and verifiable) and determined according to hosts’

usual cost accounting practices;– must comply with the applicable national law on taxes, labour and social security;– must be reasonable, justified and must comply with the principles of sound financial

management, in particular regarding economy and efficiency.

Direct costs

• “Costs that are not directly linked to the action implementation and therefore cannot be attributed directly to it.”

• To be declared as a flat-rate of 25% of eligible direct costs, excluding:– subcontracting;– costs of certain resources made available by third parties, not used on the premises

of the host institution

• Examples:– Costs related to general administration and management– Costs of office or laboratory space, including rent or depreciation of buildings and

equipment, and related expenditure such as water, heating, electricity– Maintenance, insurance and safety costs– Communication expenses, network connection charges, postal charges and office

supplies– Common office equipment such as PCs, laptops, office software– Miscellaneous recurring consumables

Indirect costs

• Costs that do not comply with eligibility conditions, in particular:

– costs related to return on capital– debt and debt service charges– provisions for future losses or debts– interest owed– doubtful debts– currency exchange losses– bank costs charged by the beneficiary’s bank for transfers from the

Agency– excessive or reckless expenditure– deductible VAT– costs incurred during suspension of the implementation of the action

• Also: costs declared under another EU or Euratom grant

Ineligible costs

• Each institution involved (other than subcontractors) will have a line on this form – pre-filled

• Important – The figures must match those in Part B2 (otherwise the figures from the administrative form will be used)

Budget in ‘administrative forms’ section

Part B2, section c, resources

Cost Category Total in Euro

Direct Costs1

Personnel

PI2 Senior Staff Postdocs Students Other

i. Total Direct Costs for Personnel (in Euro) Travel Equipment

Other goods and services

Consumables Publications (including Open Access fees), etc. Other (please specify)

ii. Total Other Direct Costs (in Euro) A – Total Direct Costs (i + ii) (in Euro) B – Indirect Costs (overheads) 25% of Direct Costs3 (in Euro) C1 – Subcontracting Costs (no overheads) (in Euro) C2 – Other Direct Costs with no overheads4 (in Euro) Total Estimated Eligible Costs (A + B + C) (in Euro)5 Total Requested EU Contribution (in Euro)6

The project cost estimation should be as accurate as possible. Significant mathematical mistakes may reflect poorly on the credibility of the budget table and the proposal overall. The evaluation panels assess the estimated costs carefully; unjustified budgets will be consequently reduced.

In case you are requesting additional funding above the normal EUR 1 500 000, fully justify your request by filling in the table below (please delete the table if not applicable).

Request for additional funding above EUR 1 500 000 for Justification

Keep only that category(ies) that apply to the project. (a) covering eligible 'start-up' costs for a PI moving from another country to the EU or an Associated Country as a consequence of receiving an ERC grant and/or, (b) the purchase of major equipment and/or, (c) access to large facilities.

Part B2, section c, resources (cont.)

Part B2, section c, resources (cont.)

The requested contribution should be in proportion to the actual needs to fulfil the objectives of the project.

Please indicate the duration of the project in months:1

Please indicate the % of working time the PI dedicates to the project over the period of the grant:

%

Specify briefly your commitment to the project and how much time you are willing to devote to the proposed project in the resources section. Please note that you are expected to devote at least 50% of your total working time to the ERC-funded project.

• State the amount of funding considered necessary to fulfil the objectives: the project cost estimation should be as accurate as possible.

• Include the direct costs of the project plus a flat-rate financing of indirect costs of 25% towards overheads.

• State how the costs will be distributed over the duration of the project.

• There is no minimum contribution per year; the requested contribution should be in proportion to the actual needs to fulfil the objectives of the project.

• The evaluation panels assess the estimated costs carefully; unjustified budgets will be consequently reduced.

What to include in the resources section

• Resources requested should be reasonable and fully justified in the proposal– Describe the size and nature of the team, key team members and their

roles; justify participation of team members from other host institutions in relation to the additional financial cost it may impose.

– Describe other necessary resources, such as infrastructure and equipment. It is advisable to include a short technical description of the equipment requested, a justification of its need as well as the intensity of its planned use.

– Justify if asking for > € 1.5 million.– Specify any existing resources that will contribute to the project. – Specify briefly your commitment to the project and how much time you

are willing to devote to the proposed project.

What to include in the resources section (cont.)

• Speak to your host institution’s research/finance office as early as possible

• The overall grant amount is determined by the peer review panels

• If your team members are at other institutions, those institutions will need to be involved in costing their part of the proposal

• All costs must be calculated and claimed according to your host organisations own accounting rules

• You can only budget for costs directly related to carrying out the project

• Link the budgets clearly to the proposed activities

Resources: general tips

Anonymous feedback taken from panel comments on successful proposals in PE, LS and SH domains

– “Given the detail of the planning, the budget is entirely reasonable.”– “The budget and resource distribution match research goals as stated.”– “The budget is carefully laid out and appropriately justified.”– “The project has three main research directions. Given this, the panel

recommends funding only three postdoctoral associates instead of four as requested in the proposal, and finds the other budget items appropriate.”

– “However, the panel found that the major equipment costs were not adequately justified and it recommends that the standard maximum grant amount according to the ERC Work Programme 2015 should not be exceeded.”

Resources: feedback from panels

Grant ManagementIntellectual Property and Open Data access

• Grant Agreement– Annex 1 – description of the action (what you wrote in the proposal)

• Flexibility– Scientific – Portability

• Progress reporting – Scientific – submitted by the PI (mid-term and final)– Financial – submitted by the beneficiary (18 months)

• Publication and exploitation of results– IPR– Open Access

Management issues to consider when preparing your application

• ‘Background’:– “any data, know-how or information — whatever its form or nature (tangible or

intangible), including any rights such as intellectual property rights — that:(a) is held by the beneficiaries before they acceded to the Agreement, and(b) is needed to implement the action or exploit the results.”

– Examples: prototypes; cell lines; patents; database rights

• ‘Results’:– “any (tangible or intangible) output of the action such as data, knowledge or information

— whatever its form or nature, whether it can be protected or not — that is generated in the action, as well as any rights attached to it, including intellectual property rights.”

– Results are normally owned by the beneficiary that generates them.

• Further information:– IPR Helpdesk– Articles 23-26 of Annotated Model Grant Agreement

IPR in ERC Grant Agreement

• Beneficiaries of ERC grants must ensure open access to all peer-reviewed scientific publications relating to its results. They must:– Deposit a machine-readable electronic copy of the published version or final

peer-reviewed manuscript accepted for publication in a repository for scientific publications as soon as possible and at the latest on publication. Moreover, they must aim to deposit at the same time the research data needed to validate the results presented in the deposited scientific publications.

– Ensure open access to the deposited publication — via the repository — at the latest:

• on publication, if an electronic version is available for free via the publisher (gold open access), or

• within six months of publication (twelve months for publications in the social sciences and humanities) in any other case (green open access).

– Ensure open access — via the repository — to the bibliographic metadata that identify the deposited publication, which must include a persistent identifier.

Open access: publications

• The ERC Scientific Council recommends subject-specific repositories:– for publications in the Life Sciences domain: Europe PubMed Central

(http://europepmc.org)– for publications in the Physical Sciences and Engineering domain: arXiv

(http://arxiv.org)– for monographs, book chapters and other long-text publications: OAPEN

Library (http://oapen.org)– If there is no appropriate discipline specific repository, researchers should

make their publications available in institutional repositories or in centralized ones, e.g. Zenodo (http://zenodo.org).

• Open Access costs should be budgeted for when submitting the application

• Further information:– Open Access Guidelines for research results funded by the ERC– Article 29 of Annotated Model Grant Agreement

Open access: publications (cont.)

• Open access to and reuse of research data should follow FAIR principles – all research data should be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable.

• Open Research Data pilot is now opt-in by default, as of 2017.• Participating beneficiaries must take the following three steps to ensure open access

to research data:– Deposit research data repository needed to validate the results presented in scientific

publication, including associated metadata, in a repository as soon as possible. – Take measures to enable third parties to access, mine, exploit, reproduce and disseminate

(free of charge for any user) their research data, including associated metadata.– Provide information via the chosen repository about tools available in order for the

beneficiaries to validate the results e.g. specialised software or software code, algorithms and analysis protocols. Where possible, these tools or instruments should be provided.

• Beneficiaries of the ERC projects participating in the ORD Pilot have to formulate a Data Management Plan (DMP) after the project has started:

– a brief plan to define what data sets the project will generate or process, whether and how these data will be made accessible, and how they will be curated, stored and preserved.

– the DMP should also provide information on the measures taken to safeguard and protect sensitive data.

Open access: research data

• Beneficiaries of ERC grants must take all measures to promote equal opportunities between men and women in the implementation of the action and aim for a gender balance at all levels of personnel assigned to the action.

• PIs should determine the relevance of integrating sex and gender analysis into their research.

• Specific activities promoting equal opportunities or gender balance or covering the gender dimension of research funded by the ERC can be considered as eligible costs where these costs are necessary for the implementation of the action.

Gender balance

Ethics

• Administrative forms, section 4 - Ethics issues table

• Ethics Self-Assessment Annex (only if answered ‘Yes’ to any questions on ethics issues table)– Brief explanation of the ethical issue(s) involved & how it will be dealt with – You may include supporting documentation, such as authorisations already

received. (Not counted in page limit)

Ethics in the ERC application

• The main areas that are addressed during the ethics review process include:– Human protection (including study participants and researchers)– Animal protection and welfare– Data protection and privacy– Environment protection– Participation of non-EU countries– Malevolent use of research results

• The ethics review process consists of:– Three steps take place before the conclusion of grant preparation:

i. Ethics Pre-Screeningii. Ethics Screeningiii. Ethics Assessment

– A fourth step takes place, after the signature of the grant agreement, during the lifetime of the selected projects:

iv. Ethics Monitoring

Ethics review process

• Ethics Pre-Screening – All proposals recommended for funding will undergo an Ethics Pre-Screening performed by the ERCEA ethics team where the proposals which can be cleared for granting are identified

• Ethics Screening – All the proposals where potential ethical issues have been identified have to undergo an Ethics Screening,

– carried out soon after the scientific evaluation and concerns only proposals shortlisted for funding.

– Each proposal will be screened by at least three independent ethics experts or the ERCEA

– The possible outcomes of the ethics screening process are:

1. The proposal is "ethics-ready" and therefore receives ethics clearance

2. Conditional clearance3. The proposal must proceed to Ethics Assessment

Ethics review process (cont.)

• Ethics Assessment – an in-depth analysis of the ethical issues.

– Proposals involving the use of Human Embryonic Stems Cells (hESCs) automatically undergo an Ethics Assessment.

– carried out by a panel consisting of at least three independent ethics experts

– The possible outcomes of the ethics assessment process are:

1. The proposal is "ethics-ready" and therefore receives ethics clearance

2. Conditional clearance3. The proposal must proceed to a second ethics assessment

Evaluation Process

• 3 research domains, 25 panels - 2 separate sets of panel members

• Indicative budget will be allocated to each panel in proportion to the budgetary demand of its assigned proposals

• Information for Applicants document provides list of panels and keywords, indicating fields of research covered

• Lists of panel members for previous ERC Starting calls can be found on the ERC website for each individual grant type under the funding section: https://erc.europa.eu/funding/starting-grants

Peer review

Social Sciences and Humanities

Physical Sciences and Engineering

Life Sciences

• SH1: Individuals, Markets and Organisations

• SH2: Institutions, Values, Environment and Space

• SH3: The Social World, Diversity, Population

• SH4: The Human Mind and Its Complexity

• SH5: Cultures and Cultural Production

• SH6: The Study of the Human Past

• PE1: Mathematics• PE2: Fundamental Constituents

of Matter• PE3: Condensed Matter Physics• PE4: Physical and Analytical

Chemical Sciences• PE5: Synthetic Chemistry and

Materials• PE6: Computer Science and

Informatics• PE7: Systems and

Communication Engineering• PE8: Products and Processes

Engineering• PE9: Universe Sciences• PE10: Earth System Science

• LS1: Molecular Biology, Biochemistry, Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

• LS2: Genetics, ‘Omics’, Bioinformatics and Systems Biology

• LS3: Cellular and Developmental Biology

• LS4: Physiology, Pathophysiology and Endocrinology

• LS5: Neurosciences and Neural Disorders

• LS6: Immunity and Infection• LS7: Applied Medical

Technologies, Diagnostics, Therapies, and Public Health

• LS8: Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology

• LS9: Applied Life Sciences, Biotechnology and Molecular and Biosystems Engineering

ERC panel structure

Proposal evaluation process

Independent, remote reviews

by panel members(of part B1 only)

Panel meetings and ranking

Proposals retained for stage 2, or rejected

STEP 2 - Evaluation

Interviews of PIs (StG & CoG only), panel meetings and

ranking

Proposals selected

Independent, remote reviews by panel members and other referees of full

proposal (parts B1 and B2)

STEP 1 - Evaluation

Eligibility check

• Step 1 (Part B1 of proposal)

– A: is of sufficient quality to pass to Step 2 of the evaluation– B: is of high quality but not sufficient to pass to Step 2 of the evaluation– C: is not of sufficient quality to pass to Step 2 of the evaluationApplicants scoring B or C told the ranking range of their proposal out of those evaluated by the panel

• Step 2 (full proposal and interview for StG and CoG)

– A: fully meets the ERC's excellence criterion and is recommended for funding if sufficient funds are available

– B: meets some but not all elements of the ERC's excellence criterion and will not be funded

Applicants told the ranking range of their proposal out of the proposals evaluated by the panel

Outcome of evaluation

Evaluated step 1Score All UK

A (through to step 2) 28.57% 31.47%

B 41.93% 45.34%C 29.50% 23.19%

Evaluated step 2Score All UK

A (funded) 47.14% 44.08%A (non-funded) 17.13% 17.11%

B 35.72% 38.82%

Proportions per score (StG-2016)

No restrictions apply in the following cases:

• A Principal Investigator whose proposal was evaluated as category A in the Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for proposals under Work Programme 2017 may submit a proposal to the Starting, Consolidator, Advanced or Synergy Grant calls for proposals made under Work Programme 2018.

• A Principal Investigator whose proposal was evaluated as category B at step 2 in the Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for proposals under Work Programme 2017 may submit a proposal to the Starting, Consolidator, Advanced or Synergy Grant calls for proposals made under Work Programme 2018.

Restrictions on submissions of proposals for 2018 StG call

Restrictions apply in the following cases:• A Principal Investigator whose proposal was evaluated as category B at step 1 in the

Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for proposals under Work Programme 2017 may not submit a proposal to the Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for proposals made under Work Programme 2018.

• A Principal Investigator whose proposal was evaluated as category C in the Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for proposals under Work Programmes 2016 or 2017 may not submit a proposal to the Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for proposals made under Work Programme 2018.

• A Principal Investigator whose proposal was rejected on the grounds of a breach of research integrity in the calls for proposals under Work Programmes 2016 or 2017 may not submit a proposal to the calls for proposals made under Work Programme 2018.

• A researcher may participate as Principal Investigator in only one ERC frontier research project at any one time.

• A researcher participating as Principal Investigator in an ERC frontier research project may not submit a proposal for another ERC frontier research grant, unless the existing project ends no more than two years after the call deadline.

• A Principal Investigator who is a serving Panel Member for a 2018 ERC call or who served as a Panel Member for a 2016 ERC call may not apply to a 2018 ERC call for the same type of grant.

Restrictions on submissions of proposals for 2018 StG call (cont.)

Proposal evaluated under Work Programme

Evaluation step Evaluation score Can the PI resubmit in 2017?

2016

1B yes

C no

2A yes

B yes

2017

1B no

C no

2A yes

B yes

Restrictions on submissions of proposals for 2018 StG call (cont.)

• Any specific changes to call and rules of operation• Can I resubmit?

– Depends on the score you received, please see earlier slides.

• Should I resubmit?– This is of course up to the PI, although many successful applications have come from PIs

who were unsuccessful with a previous application and subsequently improved their proposal.

• When should I resubmit? Will the panel members be the same?– The ERC operates two sets of panel members, which sit in alternate years.

• How can I improve my proposal? Should I take into account feedback?– In general, yes – take into account the evaluators’ feedback, while highlighting your

increased experience/achievements since the previous application.

Points to consider if resubmitting a proposal

Interviews

• All PIs whose proposals are retained for Step 2 of the peer review process will be interviewed by the peer review panel

• Takes place in Brussels (travel costs reimbursed), and must attend in person– except in exceptional cases (i.e. pregnancy, immobility due to illness, out

in research fieldwork) video or telephone interview can be arranged

• Interview lasts approximately 30 minutes (depending on panel)– Start with a presentation by the PI on the outline of the research project– Followed by a question and answer session

• Not formally weighted, but the panel will take into account the results of the interview alongside the individual reviews.

Interviews

• Be prepared for a wide range of questions from different panellists, i.e. from people not necessarily expert in your specific field

• Keep the presentation as simple as possible• Arrange mock interviews and practice extensively• It’s a project pitch rather than a lab meeting, so can also include a

short overview of your key achievements as a researcher– What do you want people to remember from a short

presentation?• Similarly, can include a short update of CV since the proposal was

submitted• Acknowledge any possible uncertainties/gaps in knowledge, but

make clear that you have plans to address them = panel should be confident that PI will be able to deal with potential difficulties

Interviews Tips

• After review process:– Funding decision and feedback– (Evaluation review procedure? Seek advice from UKRO? Requests should be

raised within 30 days of the date of the initial information letter, details will be given in your letter from the ERC)

– Feedback from ethics review?– Preparation of the grant agreement between the host and the ERC– No project negotiations as such– Grant agreement based on the proposal and the peer review decision – Can accept/reject the offered grant

• When the project starts– Sign grant agreement– Set up project account– Recruit staff onto project– Expect that all projects start within 6 months from invitation letter

What happens next?

1. Liaise with your HoD and Research Office2. Use clear and concise language3. Pay careful attention to each section4. Be ambitious, but show awareness of cutting edge5. Look at examples of successful applications 6. Read all the documentation, including the Grant Agreement7. Be realistic with the budget, clearly link your budget to activities. Has your

institution agreed your budget?8. Proofread your application9. Get application reviewed by colleagues 10.Stick to page, font size, budget limits and format11.Check submission checklist from Information for Applicants documents12.It is possible to submit your proposal on the Participant Portal as many

times as you like before the deadline

Final general tips on writing your application

• Participant Portal

• StG-2017 call

• Information for Applicants for the StG-2018 call

• 2017 ERC Work Programme

• ERC website– statistics on funded projects– funded projects– Starting Grants : including link to Panel information for calls

Useful Links

Thank you